CJD v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 243

CJD v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 243

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children, given a pattern of concerning behaviour including a criminal conviction for indecent exposure and sustained workplace findings. On consideration of all material, the existence of a risk had not been disproven. Accordingly, the decision to refuse the applicant a Working with Children check clearance was affirmed, and the application dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: CJD; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review / Final Merits Determination and Orders
Outcome
Application refused; original decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Working With Children Checks, Risk Assessment, Child Related Employment, Administrative Review, Protective Jurisdiction
Administrative Law Child Protection Equal Opportunity Working With Children Checks Risk Assessment Child Related Employment Administrative Review Protective Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CJD

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Administrative Review / Final Merits Determination and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
  2. 2 Whether the decision to refuse a Working with Children check clearance should be affirmed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children, given a pattern of concerning behaviour including a criminal conviction for indecent exposure and sustained workplace findings. On consideration of all material, the existence of a risk had not been disproven. Accordingly, the decision to refuse the applicant a Working with Children check clearance was affirmed, and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application refused; original decision affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 20 November 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children check clearance is affirmed.
  • The application for review of the decision of the Children's Guardian filed 14 December 2015 is otherwise refused and dismissed.